1. An early-19th century fairy-tale that describes a society where government is able to mobilize various proportions of the economy to work as efficiently motivated by the mystical concept entitled the "public good" as they work in the real world motivated by the evolutionary principle of personal gain. In later versions, various merits and reprimands attempt to bridge the gap, but turn out to cost more than they help as they do not address the gap at the government level.
2. A form of feudalism where bureaucracies and/or cartels providing certain services deemed "essential" receive economic favoritism rather than aristocrats or clergy, reinforced by the faith that they are "irreplaceable”.
3. A form of collectivism where government decides what is to be collectively produced/ distributed. Can occur in liberal democracy, in which case the ineffectiveness of motivation leads to shortages, and the takeover of too many markets can produce complete economic collapse, which is occurring in most of the Western world. Can occur in brutal totalitarianism, in which the shortages are temporarily offset by finding a scapegoat demographic stigmatized as not carrying its weight and forced into slave labor to produce but not consume. Examples are Eugenic Socialism in which scapegoats are chosen based on ethnicity (i.e. Hitler's Germany) and Class Socialism in which they are accused of Capitalist tendencies for opposition to the system (i.e. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China).

Money isn't worth anything because everyone is paid the same no matter what they do and whether or not they work at all. Nothing is produced so there is nothing to buy. Why work?
Because you have faith in Socialism.

1. An economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange is determined by the state/public sector in some form. Can be centralised, decentralised, democratic or undemocratic.

2. Description of a left-wing political position between social democracy (general acceptance of the market economy but thinks the public sector has a vital role in proividing some goods and services) and communism (marxism). Agrees in the state determining the means of production, distribution and exchange but wants to bring that about peacefully and democratically.

3. General description of the left: the belief that individuals should be judged on how they treat other people rather than on their job/race/sexuality, that people should have equality of opportunity, that in principle wealth should be distributed fairly to everyone who works rather than the minority who own most of the economy and most of the wealth and that an economy owned by a few individuals without a strong public sector to balance that is undemocratic and unjust.

4. A stage in history defined by Marx's theories as coming after capitlalism and before communism where the means of production is owned by the state and run in the interests of the proletariat.

5. A label used by various Marxist-Leninist dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism.

confused with communism, which doesn't work, this however can work very well with a mix of capitalism and democracy, it is a more equal economic system where the poor can become rich, whenever this comes up in a conversation someone eventually says it didn't work in russia

I think socialism is a..
Didn't work in russia
No, thats communism, this is differ...
Didn't work in cuba
Your not listening to me, Im talking about something completely different!
SHUTUP YOU FUCKING HIPPIE!!

My take: all approaches to governing people lay on a spectrum and each is interdependent with the economics of that society. Because the terms cover widths on that spectrum, and are not able to be pigeon-holed, no one conveneient definition of a term such as socialism, and, hence, no one convenient dismissal, is acceptable to a thinking person.

Socialism has many current forms, some more invested in governmental "control" and involvement (western European govenrments) ostensibly stemming from the belief that people will not pay for that from which they do not receive immediate benefit; i.e., roads, health care, the military (need taxes to pay for these things). Yes, the US is a socialist state as well, as it governs some aspects of production, some aspects of capital disbursement (in the form of the Fed, quasi-governenmental instititutions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, special US-backed corporate loans ala Chrysler in the 80s), health care and wealth distribution (taxes). We just do it to less of an extent that some claimed "socialist" states.

If there is anything I would like people to undersdtand, it would be that socialism is not a bad word, no more so tham "dog", and that your unbiased assessment, as opposed to your knee-jerk dismissal, is warranted to truly understand and judge this concept.

And, by the way, the working forms of socialism in the modern world (US included), are "social democracies".

And, American cowboy, I know you've been brought up to believe you are independent and it is your manifest destiny to strive to whatever length to outcompete, but remember you live in a community and those you outcompete will lose, and your charity should have been given prior to their loss, or their need to receive a handout. In this way we all win and enemies or the disenfranchised no longer exist.

Term invented by the affluent to convince the average that the remote possibility of great wealth is worth sacrificing health care, education, and a decent life for seniors. In other words as long as you too can be a Bilderberg, even if the chance is as remote as yogic flying, then the 98% of the population who cannot afford extensive health care, post-secondary education, or retirement savings can all suffer.

"You're being the poster child for socialism donating money to the Cancer Society, even though the pursuit of profit has allowed the use of Atrazine, DDT, BPA, PCB's and other carcinogens to be so affluent some have appeared in rain water.

Just because capital pursuit has indiscriminately stolen from every single living organism it's right to live free from toxic byproducts in the manufacture of our fuel, food, and plastics - it does not make you and I as direct consumers responsible.